ASU, (alt^I) - Term

Applied Research

angel — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:42:10 -0700

A significant part of our focus at the Applied Learning Technologies Institute is supporting academic technology research on emerging technologies and their effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience.

This research explores and develops systems and processes that further the goal of overcoming physical and perceived boundaries in order to provide information and further educational opportunities for students, teachers, and educational research. Our research functions as the conduit for extending ASU's competitive status toward grants and contracts in support of similar goals.

ASU faculty are encouraged and nurtured by alt^I to integrate technology both in and out of the classroom as an effective component in pursuit of achieving the overall goals of the university with respect to teaching, learning, and research. Additionally, through such endeavors ASU has established and maintains a significant academic technology-based presence, positive reputation and active role in the Arizona K12 community and beyond. For example, in partnership with Arizona Department of Education, ASU has developed and hosts IDEAL (Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona's Learning) Arizona's P-20+ (preschool through adult) educational portal making ASU the foundation for account access to educational resources for every K12 student (1million+) and certified teacher (58k+). The successful implementation of IDEAL positions ASU as a directly accessible resource for lifelong learning through academic technology. IDEAL enables and facilitates instruction and research partnership between ASU faculty and researchers and Arizona K12 students/teachers, and the community.

Design Research

angel — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:38:31 -0700

The Design Research methodology, as based on the Columbia University model, guides our collaborations with faculty partners. Together, we work through an iterative cycle of research, development, and assessment to create innovative uses of technology in the field of new media teaching, learning and research.

Design Research integrates the exploration and development of digital technologies with pedagogical theory and practice. alt^I rejects the long-standing division between theory-oriented educational research and service-oriented technical support and development. We seek to combine research and practice in a process that can best be summarized with a simple phrase: "build to learn."

The Design Research process for developing classroom innovations begins by partnering with faculty members to discuss their teaching practices. This conversation unfolds in a series of discussions around the following stages to incorporate successful innovative practices into the University's repertoire of academic tools:

Initial Understanding of Curriculum: What is the purpose of this course within the department's curriculum? We begin by analyzing a course's curricular context.
Problems and Challenges: What kind of challenges does this course pose? We work to identify specific challenges and obstacles that make up the learning environment.
Design Hypothesis: How can technology be used to facilitate learning? We work with faculty to articulate and identify new media solutions to enhance the educational experience.
Design of the Educational Experience: What learning experiences does the design enable? The project is implemented in the classroom and its use is closely monitored.
Educational Experience: What learning experiences does the design enable? The project is implemented in the classroom, and its use is closely monitored.
Discussion of Research and Evaluation: What have we learned? We evaluate the process and articulate conclusions for improving the project. It is important to mention that this discussion is made possible through continuous documentation throughout the entire process. The evaluation process informs future iterations.

Arizona State University Student Technology Survey

Sam — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:09:09 -0700

The Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I

Fall 2006 Summary

Technology inspires and motivates, educates and entertains, and at times is the source of frustration and trepidation. Emerging technologies are the subject of much attention, speculation, assumption, opinion, debate and research. What are the needs and desires of today's students--and of tomorrow's? Terms such as millenials, digital natives, digital immigrants, generation Y, and broadbanders are referenced in the media as well as the academic literature. Each of these terms carry much connotation, yet provide little in the way of information that can guide our decisions of how best to educate. The literature abounds with assertions, recommendations, and proclamations on how we must teach, how students must learn, and how as a University we must continuously adapt to best meet the needs of all students. We must be agile and nimble, leading edge and up to date, engaging and competitive. Ultimately, our choices must be data-based and must result in the most effective educational experience for all students. Central to any institutional decision is a clear understanding of the needs and desires of the community, the end-user, our students.

As part of an ongoing effort to foster data-based, academic technology decision-making, the University Technology Office, Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I surveyed ASU's Fall 2006 student population. Each student received a personal email invitation to participate, containing a direct link to an online survey. Response totaled 9706 students, representing an approximately sixteen percent return rate. The survey consisted of 188 items; a combination of fixed response and open-ended/text entry. Student response to the survey indicated a high level of engagement -- students who started the survey, completed the survey. Likewise the number of responses to the open ended questions and input opportunities was high. Students took the survey seriously - admittedly this is a subjective assessment, supported by analysis of indicators such as number of words per written response, format of responses--sentences versus one-word responses, degree of on-topic responses. Across each indicator, the level of engagement and attention was high. Responses to several questions in particular support this observation. For example, with questions taping perceptions of a Student Technology Fee, the responses were centered on what would and could be the outcome of such a fee. The level of detail provided by those who support, oppose, and express indifference or indecision, indicate that students value the opportunity to provide input. A strong desire to positively impact the learning experience was evident.

Who responded

Email invitations were sent to each of the 62095 ASU students enrolled in Fall 2006 courses. Nine thousand seven hundred and six students responded to the survey across a 3 week period; 5344 responded within the first 7 days, which was followed by a reminder prompt at day eight. Two thousand one-hundred seventy-one students responded between day eight and fourteen, upon which a second prompt was issued, yielding an overall response rate of 15.63%. Response distribution across ASU's campuses is expressed in Table 1. The distribution indicates representation proportional to the population, for example, in ASU's overall student population, 47.23% is male, 52.76% is female. The response rate across all campuses; 13.99% male, 15.31%, is reflective of this ration.

Campus	Invited	Responded	Response Rate
Overall	62095	9706	15.63
Tempe	48297	7171	14.85
Polytechnic	3526	650	18.43
Downtown	3310	435	13.14
West	6962	948	13.62

Level	Invited	Responded	Response Rate
Graduate Students	13389	2863	21.38
Undergraduate Students	48706	6439	13.22

Who have we not yet heard from?

When interpreting a survey we must examine potential bias and limitation of our measurement. Technology enabled survey techniques provide a unique opportunity to elicit a wide range of opinions, to the point where virtually every member of the relevant population may included. Sampling techniques often provide a more strategic and sensitive approach toward gaining a true understanding of the population under consideration--a systematic approach toward defining sub-groups and characteristics may enable the researcher to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the individuals is obtained. In the case of technology use, and in particular technology ownership, a process of sample and inference relates only part of the picture. Much is assumed and written of the digital divide; a term referring to inequities created when in this case information is delivered or accessed through technology that some have access to and others do not. Although the exact meaning and intent of this term, and more specifically the inferred cause, differs by author and audience, for the sake of our focus, we assess the status, needs and perspectives of all students, those who own computers as well as those who do not; by choice or circumstance. The survey represents a continuous and continuing effort toward gathering input from the campus community. Combining the use of ongoing survey with focus groups and direct interview procedures, we strive to enable all students to express their needs and convey ideas that can help shape and refine our learning environments.

Assumptions and procedures

The Fall 2006 Student technology survey was designed as an extension of several technology surveys presently in use across higher education institutions (Educause ECAR 2004, 2005, 2006). Questions were refined to focus on specific initiatives and relevance to ASU's structure, environment, goals and initiatives. A pervasive objective of this phase of survey is to invite and encourage student participation in the strategic planning process.

The primary areas of focus centered on:
1:1 computing
The Learning Platform
Financial considerations

The present phase of study solicited participation and input via an email invitation sent to every ASU student's preferred email address. As email is an official mechanism of communication for University business, and students hold obligation to receive communication via their designated email address, this approach was selected as a contact approach technically available to all students.

Is this real...or Spam?
In the age of unsolicited email, digital advertisement, phishing, and other electronic trickery, email from unknown senders carries an air of suspicion, in particular invitations to participate in a survey and provide input. With this in mind, the current survey invitation was issued as a direct email, to each individual, containing their name and email address. The invitation was initiated from a valid user with an asu.edu email address, and telephone, office and email address provided as a means of seeking clarification and validating authenticity of the request. A link was provided to the survey instrument, at which additional clarification, procedures, and ASU confidentiality assurances, and human subjects approval was designated.

1:1 Computing

To capture a snapshot of the equipment that students presently own, along with the extent and scope of the way that they use technologies, a series of fixed-choice and open-ended questions were presented. Across these areas, student preference and priority was assessed through direct questioning in which students ranked items, and through assessment of the open-ended responses, providing a potentially more comprehensive view of student concerns.

Seventy-seven percent of students responding indicated they own a laptop computer. Overall, forty-three percent of respondents own a laptop and desktop computer, and twenty-two percent indicated they own only a desktop computer. Two percent of those responding indicate they do not own a computer. The observed distribution was consistent across all campuses.
Male students indicated a higher percentage (46.78%) of both desktop and laptop ownership than did female (39.29%). However, in terms of owning laptop only, female students has a higher percentage of ownership (36.70%) than male (29.56%).
Graduate students (51.83 %) indicated a higher ownership of both a laptop and desktop, than did undergraduate (39.01%). Twenty-eight percent of graduate students indicated owning a laptop -- whereas 35.14% of undergrads.
Among Colleges, initial assessment indicates percentage of both desktop and laptop ownership was highest in the School of Global Management, Percentage of desktop ownership was led by Morrison School of Management where as percentage of laptop ownership was led by Cronkite School of Journalism.

College	% Laptop	% Desktop
O'Conner School of Law	98.46	1.54
University College	87.5	12.5
WP Carey	84.12	14.86
Cronkite School	78.8	19.02
Liberal Arts & Sciences	77.65	19.94
Fulton School of Engineering	76.85	20.56
Science and Technology	76.70	21.04
Nursing	76.58	22.44
Design	75.8	21.28
School of Global Mgt	73.18	26.26
Fine Arts	72.21	24.52
Mary Lou Fulton Education	71.5	25.56
Techr Ed & Leadership	69.88	28.57
Public Programs	68.37	29.3
Morrson Sch of Mgmt	65.3	31.63

Going Mobile

Mobile computing today extends well beyond the computer itself, a primary example, the mobile phone. Ninety-five percent of students indicate owning a mobile phone. The survey was structured to include consideration of a range of portable devices, including specific measure of student ownership of a digital audio player, mobile phone, and wireless gaming device. As expressed in the following table, 72% of students own a digital audio player (such as an ipod or iriver). Each of these observations is consistent across campuses. Within the colleges, ownership is reflective of the same percentages observed for computer ownership.

Device	Ownership by percentage
Portable audio player	72.33
PDA	17.11
Mobile Phone	95.24

In addition, thirty-eight percentage of respondents indicated that they own a gaming device. These students tended to be undergraduates 78.51% (versus 21.49% graduate), distributed across Colleges and campuses.

Activity

Toward a profile of ownership of devices, analysis of the overall student toolkit was conducted. Some of the interesting trends are indicated in the table below. Students who own a computer (mobile or not), also tend to own a mobile phone, gaming device, and digital audio device. Of those students who indicated owning no computer (2%), 80.86% of these indicated that they own a phone, and 60.34% reported also not owning a digital audio device. Of those students indicating not owning a mobile phone, 5%, they also tended to not own a computer (8.77%).

Students were asked to indicate the extent to which they use various devices and services on a regular basis. A threshold of 'more than once a week' was presented. Student responses across activities are indicated in the table below.

Activities	Frequency	Percentage
Email, IM, SMS	6965	83.90%
Web/Internet access	6526	78.60%
Listen to music	6482	78.10%
Word processing/spreadsheet	6012	72.50%
Store/view digital pictures	5325	64.20%
Scheduling/calendaring	4679	56.40%
Watch videos	3779	45.50%
Take class notes	3736	45.00%
Check Myspace/Facebook	3568	43.00%
Listen to radio	3133	37.80%
Play games	2551	30.70%
Listen to my course lectures	1565	18.90%
Read electronic books	1540	18.60%
Listen to podcasts	1161	14.00%
Listen to audio books	791	9.50%
Create audio recording of class lectures	623	7.50%
Create videos	606	7.30%
Create podcasts	108	1.30

Ninety percent of students responding indicated that they presently have courses that are hosted within Blackboard. Likewise this semester ASU hosts over five thousand active courses online. It is not clear the extent to which student's interpret 'using the web' as synonymous with accessing their course material via a learning management system (such as Blackboard or Sakai). This will be further explored in the next phases of the survey and focus group process. Use of web as a factor of computer ownership was explored. Of those indicating ownership of a computer, 80.36% use the web more than once per week, and 97% use email. Of those who do not own a computer, 1.49% use the web more than once per week and 1.46% email. From this perspective, computer ownership is associated with the degree to which students use the web and email.

Forty-five percent of students responding indicated that they use a mobile device to take class notes. Students who own a laptop computer use that device to take class notes 37.5% of the time. This figure coincides with students reporting of the extent to which they bring their computer to class. Of those students who own a laptop computer, 29.21% indicate that they bring the computer to class to every class. Students expressed several factors impacting their decision to not carry a computer to class, including the absence of wireless internet access throughout classrooms, and difficulty locating convenient power outlets and comfortable seating. Personal choice was also cited as a prominent factor; "don't want to carry it".
Sixty-two percent of respondents who identified themselves as owning a laptop computer indicated that they would purchase a computer under ASU's 1:1 computing plan. Sixty percent of those who identified themselves as currently owning an Apple computer indicate that they would run both Apple OS and Windows.

Also of note was the level of detail provided in the responses. On the topic of disk space as example. Assumption may be that students would desire as much disk as possible. The more storage the better. Responses however were tempered and rational. Students indicated the desire for remote storage commensurate with requirements of their program. Throughout the responses, a trend in a desire for integrated resources was observed. Rather than a call for a "one-product solution", such as a single course management system, the responses indicate a desire for easily accessed (single sign-on or 'one click') to a collection of services and resources.

Toward a "Learning Platform"

Emphasis was placed on gathering student perceptions on the 'Ideal' learning environment. What features and functions would in their view be most advantageous to their experience at ASU. We examined the experience that student's bring to ASU (see tables below). In exploring those who indicated support of a fee, those indifferent and those opposing, ratings of the priorities were consistent. Wireless everywhere, Ubiquitous connectivity, inside classrooms and throughout the campuses was of highest priority, a must-have for the learning platform. This priority is consistent with descriptions of the ideal learning platform as featuring web-based tools. Students report familiarity and use with the resources available to the general public (myspace, facebook, google, gmail, flickR, Writely--now GoogleDocs), these tools and resources necessitate of course, connectivity.

Student Technology Fee

Would it be useful for ASU to create a model in which student's pay a technology fee to advance technology and support services? Responses from students were 33% indicating yes, 31% no, and 36% indifferent. The priority of features and support was also consistent across campuses and between graduate and undergraduate students. Further examination of the priorities that students place on application of a fee were explored through open-ended questions, providing some insight to the services should be enabled through a fee.

Through analysis of fixed response and open ended questions, the most prominent requests include:

Wireless everywhere
Laptop support for 1:1 computing
Common computing areas
Automatic creation of podcasts for all lectures
Mobile phone services
a print quota rather than per-page charges

Students were provided opportunity to elaborate on their responses through open-ended questions and write-in fields. One trend in priorities relates to 'print services'. Student's express desire for inclusion of a print quota--the ability to print a specific number of pages on University printers as part of the technology fee. Access to software was also consistently cited, with primary interest in products from Microsoft (office, word, powerpoint, excel) and Adobe. Helpdesk support was also frequently referenced -- with specification of 7x24 support capable of providing assistance with all aspects of technology use and access. Student's elaborated that support capable of looking beyond one specific problem, to address interrelated challenges such as features within the course management system, 'Real' helpdesk support, not merely system status or the ability to report a problem. Comfortable environments to use laptops -- comfortable chairs, power outlets, access to coffee and snacks. Student's described the desire to be able to access learning resources anywhere. Several referenced the desire for community/public areas that also allow for access and connectivity. An area 'like Starbucks', but with more power outlets, and more comfortable chairs.

There was an even breakdown of responses was noted across categories when students were asked if they would be willing to pay for a tech fee upfront. More specific questioning will take place during focus groups. Students were also asked what services they would a tech fee to be applied to; wireless access ranked highest (81.04%) and software lowest (26.94%), however many students wrote in that they would like to see printing quotes put into place instead of a per page fee.

Would it be useful to you if you paid a technology fee upfront, instead of having to pay for services as needed?

	YES	NO	Unsure
Graduate	36.43	31.92	31.65
Undergraduate	31.97	30.06	37.97

What services should be enabled through a fee?

Service	Percentage
Wireless access everywhere on campus	81.04
Laptop support in a 1:1 program	66.74
Common computing areas - computers for walk-up use	62.27
Automatic creation of podcasts of all lectures	58.84
Mobile phone service	38.69
Software	26.94

Types of software indicated in write-in entry fields called primarily for Microsoft Office tools (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) and Adobe products (Photoshop, Acrobat). Frequent reference was made toward a fixed-number of print copies available per semester--as part of a quota rather than paying per-page as needed.

Podcasts

Sixty-two percent of the students responding indicated a desire to have podcasts of their courses available. On how students anticipate accessing the podcast, 55% prefer access via their laptop computer, 35% on a portable audio player, and 33% a desktop computer. The desire to access via a laptop may appear counter intuitive on first glance. However, as format of 'Podcasts' continue to evolve, the capabilities of this distribution approach span a range of formats; from an audio file, to enhanced podcasts which combine audio with graphics such as slides, synchronized to the audio, text files such as handouts and readings, and 'video podcasts', which can be viewed on a video enabled portable device -- as well as via a computer. As a learning tool, the majority indicate they would use their portable computer for access. A benefit of the flexibility of 'podcast' is the ability for students to access material in various formats depending on need and circumstance. A concern when making audio versions of courses available is that the student's will stop coming to class. Experience across institutions who make podcasts available has not shown this to be the case. Several other circumstances impact the way that podcasts 'impact' instruction--perhaps the most significant is an approach by which the podcast is approaches not as merely an audio version of the classroom experience, but instead as another resource or tool toward instructional delivery. Student's anticipated use of podcasts supports this view -- with 71% indicating they would use podcasts when a class is missed, 55% re-visit lectures for better understanding and review, and 42% for access to additional, supplementary materials made available by the instructor. Ultimately the use of podcast is directly influenced by the way in which the instructor incorporates the resource into the instructional experience. 'podcast' does not by nature imply live creation and distribution, but can also include pre-design materials and resources - or material constructed following the class session. This range of capabilities carries great potential for expanding and enhancing the learning experience.

In Summary...and The Future

We asked students to indicate how they would envision technology in education three years from now. Initial analysis of these open-ended questions indicate emphasis on interactive lectures, constant connectivity and interaction, digital textbooks, audio and text versions of all classes. At the same time, a theme of "fear of losing 'touch' and ability to communicate" emerges. Also expressed is a caution against becoming an "all online"-- with elaboration suggesting that concern for 100% online courses taking the place of direct, interaction with faculty and other students. Interestingly interaction is not necessarily referenced as in-class, lecture, but rather the ability to engage with instructors and peers, via technology as well as in person. 'Blur' the distinction between in-class and online was another frequent answer. As more detailed analysis of the open ended questions is conducted, results will be made available along with initial reports from the student focus groups.

The present survey provides important information on the current state of student computing at ASU. While no survey can provide a comprehensive overview of every need and perspective of every student, in every situation, through careful consideration of the information expressed by the thousands of students participating in this activity, we are provided a valuable framework upon which we can extend our understanding and awareness. Most importantly, we have established a means of communication and expression. The keen insight and observation offered us by these students is significant in and of itself, and speaks highly of the level of interest and commitment of ASU students toward improving our educational environment. Likewise through your involvement in reading this summary, and in participating in our ongoing effort to develop, implement and constantly refine our Learning Platform, we each contribute to the future of ASU, a New American University.

Dr. Samuel DiGangi

Associate Vice President

Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I

University Technology Office

Associate Professor

Mary Lou Fulton College of Education

sam@asu.edu

480.965.2047

Dr. Angel Jannasch-Pennell

Assistant Vice President

Applied Learning Technologies Institute alt^I

University Technology Office

angel@asu.edu

480.965.3906

Bibliography

sandya — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:14:58 -0700

University Technology Policy and Governance

Technology Governance

Benchmarks for course and program quality are based on a deep understanding of the needs and desires of adult students. As Hanna (2003) indicates, the new metrics for program quality in higher education are “…based on outcomes that matter to students and employers rather than on inputs that matter to faculty and administrators” (p. 30). Flexibility, responsiveness, timeliness, efficiency, and applicability are at the heart of the quality benchmarks (Hanna, 2003). Johnstone (2005) adds that the differentiator for remarkable programs “…is, and will be, service to students.”
The following documents represent established guidelines for quality higher education courses and programs and they form the foundation of principles of good practice at.
Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs - The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (Best Practices in Distance Education).

Sloan-C Five Pillars of Quality – (http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/index.asp)
o Student Access
o Student Satisfaction
o Learning Effectiveness
o Faculty Satisfaction
o Cost Effectiveness and Institutional Commitment
TLT (Teaching, Learning and Technology) Flashlight Project - Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. (http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html)
o Encourages student-faculty contact.
o Encourages cooperation among students.
o Encourages active learning.
o Gives prompt feedback.
o Emphasizes time on task.
o Communicates high expectations.
o Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49 (2), 3-6.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
Hanna, D. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 38 (4), 24.
Johnstone, S. M. (2005). “New Benchmarking Approach: Open Educational Resources.” NUTN [Conference]. San Francisco. 12 June. 2005.
Distance Education: Guidelines for Good Practice
The Higher Education Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers:
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/distance.pdf

Instructional Technology Development

Distance Education

Models for teaching online
It is a truism among educational researchers that media studies, i.e. studies which seek to compare one means of instructing against another, have no useful purpose, whether or not the measured differences in learning are significant (c.f. Twigg). In large part this is because different media for instruction have different strengths.
Some researchers have investigated possibilities of developing software that would be flexible enough for the varying pedagogies of differing disciplines. Others have quietly continued to contribute studies that have gradually developed the mainstream models and pushed our understanding of the current models forward. Instructional design theory, with its careful attention to the pedagogical process, was slow to leap into the breach but then contributed practices that have been essential to the success of online learning. Still others have been software-oriented. Few academic fields have contributed; educational disciplines (which own the underlying pedagogical discourse) have remained within their towers, while teachers of dance and engineering have floundered.
Ertmer, P. (2006). Efficacy of peer feedback in online learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Available: http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA06_fdbk.pdf

Measuring Success in Online Courses and Programs
The Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) report, Measuring Success in Web-Based Distance Learning represents one example of criteria for evaluating course and program success.
(see Measuring Success in Web-Based Distance Learning for the full report.)

Client-Services Support and a Team Project Approach
Distributed Learning often employs a multi-point, client-services support model. The goal is to provide all the services and resources instructors and students need, when and where they need them. To this end Distance Learning staff interact with faculty, staff and students in-person, with the web and Internet, and with the phone. Distance Learning staff work to make instructors successful with all of their distance and distributed learning experiences. (See Fink, 2002).
Fink, M.L. (2002). Faculty on the Move: Rethinking Faculty Support Services, In Syllabus, 15 (7), 27-29.
Team Project Approach Source:
Adapted from a process developed by the Online Instruction Group at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Public Health. Used with permission.
Note: Process outlined in an article originally published in The Technology Source (http://ts.mivu.org/) as:
Chapman, D., & Nicolet, T. (2003). Using the Project Approach to Online Course Development, In The Technology Source, March/April 2003. Available online at The Technology Source

Course classification - the continuum
alt^I supports a wide variety of course types, including all of the technology-mediated courses described in the Sloan Consortium publication, Growing by Degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005 – p.4:
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf

Sloan-C effective practices
http://sloan-c.org/effective/index.asp
Sloan-C focuses on five pillars of quality in online education: student satisfaction, access, learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction and institutional cost effectiveness. For each of these areas, pillar editors are collecting practices that are innovative and replicable.

1:1

DiGangi, S., Kilic, Z., Yu C. H., Jannasch-Pennel, A, Long,L., Kim, C., Stay, V., & Kang, S. (in press). 1 to 1 computing in higher education: A survey of technology practices and needs. AACE Journal.

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329-348.

Open Source

Dougiamas, M. & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source Course Management System. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 171-178). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

CMS/LMS

Providers and Consumers in Today’s Distributed Learning Environment
Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT)
http://www.center.rpi.edu/Monographs/Quality.html

Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference
Carol Twigg, National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT):
http://www.center.rpi.edu/Monographs/Innovations.html

Google apps for education.Retrieved November 20, 2006, from https://www.google.com/a/edu/

Kindle, J. (2006, October 12). Check your inbox, you’ve got Gmail. ASU Web Devil, Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2006/10/12/news/698216

Technology Support

Accessibility

Cast.org researchers, focusing on ways to include learners with disabilities, concluded that their most productive path would be research and development in universal design for learning. To encourage all learners, Cast.org suggests these principles:

1. Multiple means of representation, to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge,
2. Multiple means of expression, to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know,
3. Multiple means of engagement, to tap into learners' interests, offer appropriate challenges, and increase motivation.

Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., McCarter, J. (2004). Making distance learning courses accessible to students and instructors with disabilities: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 7(3). p. 233-246

Global Education
At the dawn of Internet-based education, evolving as it did from paper-and-pencil correspondence courses, a conundrum for educational thinkers was: how will we cope with learners in different time zones? Quickly as technology may develop, in this case the rate was relatively slow. It is not without reason that the Sloan-C consortium calls its initiative by the name of ALN, or asynchronous learning networks. Clearly, asynchronous learning was the answer to the time zone problem. Considerations of how to integrate instructional means such as virtual reality were dropped. Videoconferencing, though it kept the discussion alive, was not widespread enough to be of great importance in the developing model of online instruction. In 2006, with the growing use of 3d environments, consideration of synchronous environments may once more rise to the top of the priority list. In the meantime, global education thinking also considers the role of culture and gender, as well as the ease or lack of ease of connectivity, including digital divide issues.
Zembylas, M., Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, M.S. (2006). Of Nomads, Polyglots, and Global Villagers: Globalization, Information Technologies, and Critical Education Online. In: Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2006). Editors. Current Perspectives on Applied Information Technologies: Distance Education and Distributed Learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Price, L. Gender differences and similarities in online courses: challenging stereotypical views of women. (2006, October). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22 (5). 349-359.

Du, J.,Havard, B., Yu, C. & Adams, J. (2004, Fall). The Impact of Technology Use on Low-Income and Minority Students' Academic Achievement: Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 4 ( 2). 21-38.

Assessment
Assessment in distance courses is an area that will require ongoing investigation and research into best practices. Alternative assessment practices include portfolio-based assessment, which has led to the development of OSP. The US Department of Education, working with CAST, is encouraging the development of assessment practices and software that can be used for all learners.
Gibson, D. & Barrett, H. (2003). Directions in electronic portfolio development. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 2(4). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/general/article3.cfm

Hansen, K. (2005). Application of traditional and online journaling as pedagogy and means for assessing learning in an entrepreneurial seminar. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, 3(2).

Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7).

Professional Development
Teachers at all levels find technology a necessary element in instruction. At the university level, where pedagogical principles are not well integrated in all disciplines, the introduction of technology and distributed education can lead to breakdown of teaching models. Professional development models are therefore critical. Vrasidas and Glass have collected chapters ranging from pre-service teacher preparation to the support of university faculty in their recent edited book.
Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2006). Editors. Current Perspectives in Applied Information Technologies. Preparing teachers to teach with Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Krista Glazewski and Thomas Brush’s chapter, Integrated Field-Based Models for Technology Preparation, investigates pre-service models at seven universities.

Judith A. Duffield’s chapter, Mentoring a Teacher Preparation Faculty Toward Technology Integration, discusses lessons learned in the integration of technology use with faculty over a nine-year period.

Research Methodology

Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. (2005). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-116.

Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., and Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in Higher Education 44(1): 1–19.

Data mining

Hearst, M. (2003). What Is Text Mining? Retrieved November 27, 2006 from http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/text-mining.html

Rajman M., & Besancon,R. (1998). Text Mining – Knowledge extraction from unstructured textual data. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS-98), Rome.

Faculty Technology Survey

ruviwije — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:56:05 -0700

I. Introduction

Innovative technologies are integral to the effectiveness of faculty of the New American University. Technology can facilitate, enable, and transform faculty instructional and research activities. Likewise the effective use of technology directly impacts the experience of our students--as an institution we establish and promote a culture of communication and collaboration, technology is the platform for connectedness and outreach. The Applied Learning Technologies Institute (alt^I), of ASU's University Technology Office, is dedicated to the advancement of higher education through research, collaboration, and action. The Institute brings together faculty, researchers, students, and professionals, working hand in hand with programmers, engineers, designers, and support staff, toward a common goal; ensuring the success of all learners (see UTO strategic plan).

Faculty face several instructional technology challenges today. Adopting technology is a process that involves time - initially to discover the technology, to investigate and learn the application, later to effectively use, and finally to see results. Rapid changes in technology, balancing the time needed to learn to use the tool or application with the time needed to accomplish the task itself, may discourage or dissuade faculty. Often times newer technologies are introduced separately and not integrated into existing Learning Management Systems already familiar to faculty. To invest in the newer tools requires additional time and leads to technology management concerns. Just as technology is rapidly changing, so are student preferences and expectations. Institutional decisions to switch products or discontinue support for certain tools may create an unstable and unpredictable environment for faculty. Faculty may decide that investing time when the future is unpredictable may be too costly (McGee & Diaz, 2007). Understanding the issues surrounding technology integration and innovation from the faculty's perspective can help institutions find solutions that will yield results and benefit the entire campus. Gathering data from faculty to inform decisions around academic technologies is critical.

Toward gaining a better understanding of access to, use of, and interest in technology for their work, The Applied Learning Technologies Institute conducted a faculty technology survey at the end of the spring 2007 semester. In particular, we were interested in the ways faculty currently integrate technology into instruction and their interest in learning more about how to utilize academic technologies. Data from the Spring 2007 Faculty Survey is considered in connection with findings from a similar study of ASU student technology use conducted by alt^I in Fall 2006. These surveys are intended to serve as a part of an ongoing, multi-faceted assessment protocol that can influence and inform technology adoption, design, and support at ASU, throughout the community, and across disciplines.

The findings from the Spring 2007 Faculty Technology Survey are presented below:

II. Methods
III. Respondents
- Access to Technology
- Applications and Activities
- Summary and Implications
IV. Teaching and Learning with Technology

Current Practices and Pedagogical Implications
Training and Support
Assessment with Technology
Summary and Implications

V. Current Initiatives
- Collaborative Models
- Disaster Planning
- Summary and Implications
VI. Institutional Implications

II. Methods

The ASU Spring 2007 Faculty Technology survey consisted of 211 closed-ended and 11 open-ended items organized by focus into six sections: 1) Experience with Technology, 2) Teaching Internet, Hybrid & Web-enhanced Courses; 3) Innovative Curriculum; 4) Disaster Planning - Continuing Instruction; 5) Assessing Student Learning with Technology, and 6) Background Information.

Data were collected using an online survey administered between April 17, 2007 and April 27, 2007 to 4,370 faculty members. For this study, "faculty" were defined as anyone serving in a "teaching" role during the spring 2007 semester - this includes full-time and part-time faculty, instructors, lecturers, graduate assistants/associates and administrators or staff who were teaching courses. The initial invitation to participate was sent by email on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 and reminders were sent to those who had not yet responded on Tuesday, April 24 and Thursday April 26, 2007. Overall, 1,846 faculty completed the survey--a 42% response rate.

A web-based survey application, SurveyMonkey, was used to conduct the data collection. There were no systematic technical issues with the data collection. Individuals with questions or concerns about the study were prompted to email an internal address. Email sent by survey participants received a prompt, personalized response by alt^I research staff. This strategy of personalized interactions with potential non-responders is known to improve response (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000; Dillman, Tortora, & Bowker, 1998). Data was cleaned and coded for quantitative analysis that was conducted in SPSS. In addition, qualitative analysis was conducted of the open-ended responses. Tables reporting univariate percentage distributions for all closed-ended survey items can be found in Appendix A. [link to doc with all tables] -Laura 10/4/07 2:04 PM

III. Respondents

Who responded to the ASU Faculty Technology Survey? In effort to examine how well the faculty survey respondents represent all ASU faculty, the demographic distributions were considered and respondents' self-report was compared to institutional data from the 2006-2007 ASU Fact Book.

The overall distribution of Spring 2007 Faculty Technology Survey respondents was similar to the existing distribution of faculty across ASU campuses and colleges (see Chart 1). Some colleges are somewhat over-represented in the Spring 2007 Faculty Technology Survey (i.e. Education) and others are under-represented (i.e. Engineering). But overall the distribution of faculty response across the colleges is similar to the distribution of all faculty by college.

Chart 1.
All ASU Faculty and Faculty Technology Survey Response Distributions by College

Again, the Spring 2007 Faculty Technology Survey aimed to gather response from all faculty, staff and graduate students who were in a teaching role. Approximately two-thirds of all respondents reported being in 100% full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Of the part-time participants, three-quarters were graduate assistants/associates and faculty associates. In contrast, 65% of the full-time respondents were ranked faculty members. The distribution of ranked faculty response is similar to the distribution of all faculty by rank (see Chart 2). One difference, however, is that the survey respondents appear to under-represent full professors and over-represent "other". This pattern may be a result of using self-report scales for rank on the survey. A number of full professors identified as "other" on the survey because they were concurrently in administrative positions (i.e. Department Chair, Director, etc...).

Chart 2.
All ASU Faculty and Faculty Technology Survey Response Distributions by Faculty Rank

Although there are proportionally more men in faculty and graduate teaching positions at ASU, women were more likely to respond to the Spring 2007 Faculty Technology Survey (Chart 3). Some researchers have found that women are more likely to respond to online surveys (Sax et al., 2003; Underwood et al., 2000). Yet, this pattern is not consistent across all surveys. Other research has found that men are more likely to respond to web-based surveys (Carini et al., 2003; Tomsic et al., 2000; Kehoe & Pitkow, 1996; Palmquist & Stueve, 1996; Smith & Leigh, 1997). It is important when interpreting faculty response to keep in mind that women are slightly over-represented in this study.

Chart 3.
All ASU Faculty and Faculty Technology Survey Response Distributions by Gender

Demographic information about the respondents is compared to the population to determine to what degree the two groups are similar. The more similar the respondents are to the population with regards to demographic items, the more confident we can be that the respondents represent the population on all measurement items. Examining representation across colleges, faculty rank and gender suggests the respondents are similar to the overall population of faculty. However, we should consider the fact that some colleges, men, and full professors may be under-represented in the data.

Access to Technology

Many perceive limited access to computers and the Internet as a common obstacle to technology use, especially in education (the Digital Divide Network, n.d.; EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey,2006). However, almost all ASU faculty report they have access to computers at home (97.6%) and at work (99.4%) [1]. In addition, most ASU faculty have a high-speed Internet connection from home (85.8% overall - 26.9% DSL and 58.9% Cable). Similar findings about higher education faculty having access to computers and the Internet have been reported elsewhere. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics reported 10 years ago, in fall 1998, that 97% of instructional faculty and staff at degree granting institutions had Internet connectivity at work and they were also likely to have access at home. Although access may be considered an issue for other populations, within higher education in general, and among ASU faculty in particular, access to computers and the Internet does not appear to be the barrier.

What types of computers do ASU faculty use? At home and at work, more ASU faculty use PCs than Apple Macintosh computers (Chart 4). However the proportion of Apple users at ASU is significantly more than the company's reported market share of 4.8% (Dalrymple, 2006). To support a consistent and effective learning environment across vendors, ASU's 1:1 Computing program promotes a select group of suppliers, including Apple and Dell, to offer faculty, staff and students affordable options to buy or lease computers. This approach is in line with ASU's goal of providing a customized teaching and learning experience for each individual user.

Chart 4.
Faculty Computer Use by Location in Percentages

ASU faculty are also more likely to use desktop computers than laptop computers, especially at work (Chart 4). In addition, many faculty who own or use laptops also own or use a desktop computer. In contrast to faculty, many ASU students report [2] they only use laptops and fewer students report owning both a desktop and laptop computer (Chart 5). Using laptop computers represents a shift to mobile technologies. ASU is continuing to increase the level of wireless access across its campuses, which supports mobile technology use.

Chart 5.
Faculty and Student Computer Ownership/Use

Mobile technologies are increasingly the delivery platform of choice for students (The New Media Consortium, 2006), and faculty are lagging behind in this area. Some faculty go as far as prohibiting laptop use or wireless access in their classrooms, which exhibits a gap between what faculty and students perceive as useful and necessary technologies for education (Efaw, 2005; Alexander, 2004).

"Students’ views of what is and what is not technology are increasingly different from those of faculty. From small, flexible software tools to ubiquitous portable devices and instant access, students today experience technology very differently than faculty do, and the gap between students’ view of technology and that of faculty is growing rapidly." (The New Media Consortium, 2007:xx).

Even though their students are more likely to prefer mobile computing, nearly all ASU faculty (91%) use a desktop at least some of the time. Using a computer fixed to a particular location does not appear to have a negative impact on faculty satisfaction with their computer access. When ASU faculty were asked whether they are satisfied with the computer access they have for their work, 96% of all respondents indicated they are at least somewhat satisfied and 78% said they are satisfied or very satisfied with their computer access (Chart 6).

Nationally, there has been a trend of increased satisfaction among faculty with regards to their computer access. According to findings from the 1998 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), 46% of full time faculty rated their institutions' quality of computing resources as good and an additional 1/3 rated those resources as excellent (Warburton et al., 1999). In a more recent NSOPF study conducted in 2003, 78% of faculty reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction (NCES, 2004). Though faculty satisfaction with computing resources, including classroom technologies, has been increasing nationally, in our study ASU faculty report even greater rates of satisfaction (96% reporting at least somewhat satisfied see Chart 6).

Chart 6.
Faculty Satisfaction with Computer Access

Unlike faculty who appear to be content with their access to computers, their students exhibit lower levels of satisfaction regarding technology on campus (Hartman, Moskal & Dziuban, 2005; Oblinger 2005). Digitally literate students of the Net-Generation come to college with high expectations about the availability of innovative technologies; however, their colleges struggle with cycle of adopting and integrating the newest technologies. This challenge is not unique to institutions. Faculty are also lagging behind in the integration of technology into their curriculum. A January 2005 ABOR report on Arizona's educational future identifies this discrepancy between students' expectations for academic technology use and the choices their instructors make. "The in-coming students grew up in this environment. The educational methods in most universities do not take full advantage of the many combinations of technology and the changed student" (ABOR, 2005). These generational differences between faculty and students are striking. Faculty are not as highly immersed in the rich digital environments that attract and engage their students, which makes the academic technologist's job challenging (Campbell et al., 2007).

Applications and Activities

How do ASU faculty currently use technology? What applications do they use? Nearly all ASU faculty report using email (99%), Web-browsing (93%) and word processing (93%) at least once a day or more often. In contrast, many faculty report they have never used Eportfolios (66%), Google Docs (60%) or video conferencing (55%) (Chart 7). When looking at technology and web-based, Web 2.0 activities (i.e. blogs, wikis, digital audio, digital video, podcasts), more faculty report being users of content than producers of content. For instance, nearly all ASU faculty indicate they have never authored a blog (80%), never contributed to a wiki (81%), nor produced a podcast (89%) and most faculty report they have never referenced a wiki (59%), never produced digital audio (64%), never produced digital video (64%), nor listened to a podcast (55%) (Chart 8). Web 2.0 technologies are considered at the forefront of popular technology trends, and they are especially relevant for education (New Media Consortium, 2007); the ASU findings are important in that they illustrate how faculty technology use is inconsistent with contemporary developments, as well as with student expectations and experiences.

Chart 7.
Frequency of Faculty Use of Applications

Chart 8.
Frequency of Faculty Activity

Although ASU faculty are behind their students with regards to technology use, they are ahead of their national counterparts in some ways. For example, the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty reported 69% of full-time faculty using email in 1998 (Walburton et al, 1999). In fall 2003, 72% of instructional faculty across the nation reported they used email to contact students (NCES, 2004). In our study, 92% of ASU faculty are using email for instructional purposes (Chart 9). Given that the large scale national data available only addresses faculty use of an older technology - email, one can imagine how far behind the faculty might be, nationally, in terms of newer, much more interactive and collaborative Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs, podcasts and etc...

In addition to email, many ASU faculty are using other technologies for instruction. For example, most faculty report using word processing (89%), web-browsing (85%), and presentation software (81%) to teach and many faculty indicate they use spreadsheets (63%) for instruction (Chart 9). Certain technologies have penetrated our daily lives so widely that it is not surprising to see these technologies used for many purposes (personal, research, administrative and instruction). In addition, other technologies are designed for particular purposes, in these cases we'd expect faculty to report applying the technologies to specific purposes. For example, presentation software is primarily used for instruction (81%) and research (55%) compared to 23% reporting presentation use for personal reasons. Whereas faculty are more likely to use spreadsheets for personal use (41%) as a result of the relevancy and intended functions of the software.

Other technologies are less widely used by ASU faculty. For example, 40% of faculty report they have developed web-pages for instruction. It is likely that the wide-spread use of learning management tools (i.e. Blackboard) by colleges and universities facilitate the production of these instructional web-pages. Less than 25% of faculty indicate they develop web-pages for other purposes (personal, administrative, or research). In general, the fact that fewer faculty have experience developing web-pages for any reason represents the trend that most people are consumers of technology rather than producers of content on the Web.

Chart 9.
Faculty Use of Applications by Purpose

As discussed above, most ASU faculty, though highly computer literate, are not well versed in newer, interactive and collaborative applications (e.g., blogs, wikis, digital audio/video, or podcasts). Yet there is a small group of ASU faculty who are using these Web 2.0 technologies...but for what reasons? Among those faculty who report using these technologies, more indicate they do so for personal reasons (Chart 10). For example, 36% of faculty who read blogs do so for personal reasons compared to 23% who read blogs for research, 17% for instruction, and 7% for administrative purposes. And 23% of faculty who listen to podcasts do so for personal reasons, versus 14% for instruction, 13% for research and 5% for administrative purposes. Perhaps there is a progression from using technology for personal reasons to integrating technology into teaching and research. As these technologies become more familiar, applications into an educational context is more likely. In addition, such a progression would require that faculty see an educational value before they begin incorporating these technologies into their curriculum. We will discuss in later sections how institutional policies and faculty training might affect such trends as well.

Chart 10.
Faculty Activities by Purpose

Chart 10 shows a slight preference among ASU faculty for blogs and podcasts for personal consumption, while using digital video and audio are more (or as) likely to be used for instructional purposes. ASU faculty are also reading (again consuming) blogs and wikis for research purposes and perhaps diffusion into the instructional realm is the next step. This transfer into instructional use, at least for blogs and wikis, requires faculty to become content producers with a new technology and allow (teach/facilitate) their students to do the same. However, faculty could incorporate other technologies, such as digital audio/video and podcasts, into their curriculum without being content producers. Either case requires faculty to have a basic understanding of "how to" as well as a pedagogical understanding about "why" to incorporate such technologies into their teaching. Although interactive and collaborative Web 2.0 technologies are being used more frequently and may be more attractive to students, many faculty have not attempted to use and most have not yet tried to integrate these technologies into their instruction.

Summary and Implications:

In short, ASU faculty have access to computers and the Internet and they are satisfied with their access. Patterns of ASU faculty use, however, vary across applications, with newer, Web 2.0 technologies being used less. The overall picture shows that ASU faculty are well-versed in older technologies like email, web-browsing, and static software tools, and they utilize these technologies in instruction, research, administrative duties and personal life. Among the few that do use more innovative technologies, most are not using the applications for instructional purposes. Perhaps faculty do not see the importance of Web 2.0 technologies in an educational context. However, this pattern reflects the gap between how students and faculty use technology and perceive the value of these applications for education and their daily lives. Web-based social networking applications such as Facebook, which were not initially designed with educational applications in mind, can shed light on how to attract the attention of younger students. Applications like Facebook not only bring students in, but also hold their interest and compel them to contribute. Most instructors strive to develop and employ strategies that achieve these goals. Faculty training and development programs should be designed to inform faculty about web-based social networking applications, as well as other Web 2.0 technologies, and demonstrate best practices for educational purposes.

Since access to technology does not seem to be the primary issue, institutional initiatives can focus efforts on addressing the challenges surrounding faculty use of technology. Success of such initiatives requires careful consideration of the relationship between technology and pedagogy; effective faculty training and support; and the maintenance of a leading-edge, forward-thinking institutional environment. Faculty buy-in plays a significant role.